New Study prove Fukushima caused byearthquake in the first minutes not the tsunami

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Apart from the failure of one emergency diesel generator, all of the safety systems at Fukushima operated correctly and there was no loss of cooling, core melt or any danger to the operators or the public due to the earthquake.

Had the sea defences been adequate, then we would never have heard of Fukushima at all.

"The magnitude-9 earthquake caused severe ground motions that lasted for several minutes at the Daiichi plant. The measured motions reasonably matched the predictions of the designers of the seismic protection measures. Upon detection of these ground motions, the safety systems at Daiichi shut down the reactors and started the back-up systems. All the evidence I have seen, including from the other Japanese nuclear power plants that witnessed similar ground motions, supports the view that the Daiichi plant safely survived this massive earthquake.

However, the flood protection measures at the Daiichi plant were originally designed to withstand a 3.1m high tsunami, whereas the largest wave that crashed into the site in March inundated it to around 15m. A review in 2002 by the operators of the Daiichi plant did result in increases to the tsunami defences to enable it to better survive a 5.7m high tsunami. This improvement still proved to be inadequate, especially considering the history of tsunamis along that coast over the past century."

"The trigger factor does not even have to be an earthquake. Storms and strokes of lightening, water damage in the reactor (internal flooding), a minute fault in one of the numerous weld seams or just a simple turbine shutdown involving valve failure (malfunction of the main heat sink) can suffice for a worst-case disaster. According to experts’ analyses, even a “normal” SCRAM can be followed by an unfortunate chain of events involving component-failures and result in a reactor meltdown." What??? Storms cannot damage reactors. There are numerous reactors in America and Japan that continue to operate even in Category 5 hurricanes! Lightening strikes are dealt with in the same manner as on normal buildings (lightening conductor), water damage in the reactor (how?), minute fault in a weld seam, maybe, but these scenarios are modelled to death with numerous reactor codes and with practical (non-radioactive) experients. Turbine trips are also handled as normal operational occurrences. Basically, these so called experts have no idea what they are talking about.

"The lesson to be learned from Fukushima is that even after a successful shutdown, a nuclear reactor can continue to generate such immense amounts of heat that even a relatively short break in the cooling process can cause the core to overheat and result in the massive release of lethal radioactive substances, which are imbibed by the population not only through the air and drinking water, but in particular via the food chain." Erm, this has been known about since we started building power reactors. It isn't a lesson to be learnt, it is an example of what can happen if the safety systems are completely disabled.

New generation (AP1000 at least) reactors are designed to be passively safe (for 72 hours) following a fault like that which occurred at Fukushima. This would give the operators enough time to bring in the external power supplies and sort out the cooling.

Like all industrial processes, there are lessons to be learnt from Fukushima, but this paper seemed to have been written with a definite agenda in mind. It wasn't objective, and from what I could read (only the summary was in English) bore no relation to reality.

Hmmm, if it was a nuclear explosion, why are the buildings still there? Why haven't they been vapourised?

this is the same why they don't use the nuclear bomb against germany back in 1945 because german towns are made by stone and stone do not burn.
they prefer to use it against Japanese towns because they are made of wood means it burns.
just watch the stone churches in Japanese after the nuclear bomb the stone are still there.
thats the same in Fukusima a nuclear explosion do not mean strong explosion for example the Father of all bombs is stronger than a smal nuke.

the simple answer is: the explosion was not strong enav to vapourise the building but yes stupid people like you think nuclear bombs are always explosion like "Tsar" fusion bombs

sure with a Tsar your effect shows up. but its a fusion bomb not a atom split bomb.

ok for stupid people need pictures here the Hiroshima church after the nuclear bomb:

why the church is not molten glas on the flor ? o yes you are an expert i know it my picture is a fake LOL.

New generation (AP1000 at least) reactors are designed to be passively safe (for 72 hours) following a fault like that which occurred at Fukushima. This would give the operators enough time to bring in the external power supplies and sort out the cooling.

this is just wrong the AP1000 is not save the first 72hours because the passiv cooling solution can not backup the first 32minutes.

and fuskishima shows if something goes wrong then it goes wrong on the first 32 minutes.

Oh, and if you are saying that my references are biased, then the authors of this report definately are:
"Henrik Paulitz, expert on nuclear energy, IPPNW Germany
Reinhold Thiel, member of the board of directors, IPPNW Germany"
What is the IPPNW? It is the "German Affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War"

sure you are Biased if you are not a nuclear fanboy LOL!!! what a irony!

one is for sure German anti-nuclear scientists know better than you!

to be against nuclear-weapons and nuclear-power plant is a sign of competence!!!